See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5603191

Characterization of Urban Solid Waste in

Chihuahua, Mexico

Article in Waste Management February 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.023 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

53 210

4 authors, including:

Montse Meneses Mara de Lourdes Ballinas

Autonomous University of Barcelona Autonomous University of Chihuahua
35 PUBLICATIONS 868 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 518 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francesc Castells
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
76 PUBLICATIONS 2,003 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Montse Meneses on 10 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Characterization of urban solid waste in Chihuahua, Mexico

Guadalupe Gomez a,b, Montserrat Meneses a, Lourdes Ballinas b, Francesc Castells a,*
a
Departament dEnginyeria Qumica, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain
b
Facultad de Ciencias Qumicas, Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua, 31310 Chihuahua, Mexico

Accepted 31 October 2007

Available online 8 January 2008

Abstract

The characterization of urban solid waste generation is fundamental for adequate decision making in the management strategy of
urban solid waste in a city. The objective of this study is to characterize the waste generated in the households of Chihuahua city,
and to compare the results obtained in areas of the city with three dierent socioeconomic levels. In order to identify the dierent socio-
economic trends in waste generation and characterization, 560 samples of solid waste were collected during 1 week from 80 households in
Chihuahua and were hand sorted and classied into 15 weighted fractions. The average waste generation in Chihuahua calculated in this
study was 0.676 kg per capita per day in April 2006. The main fractions were: organic (48%), paper (16%) and plastic (12%). Results show
an increased waste generation associated with the socioeconomic level. The characterization in amount and composition of urban waste
is the rst step needed for the successful implementation of an integral waste management system.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction dierent socioeconomic levels. Nevertheless, there is no

Inappropriate solid waste operation, storage, collection
and disposal practices entail environmental and public
health risks (World Resources Institute, 1996). Knowledge
of solid waste composition is necessary for an adequate
management of urban solid waste (McDougal et al.,
2002; Zeng et al., 2005). The variability in solid waste com-
position in Mexico is highly aected by population move-
ments, resulting from the seasonal migration to the
United States. This fact has had an impact greater than
economic growth in the modication of regional consump-
tion patterns (Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003).
Several studies have been carried out in Mexico about
the composition of solid waste. Among them, Bernache-
Perez et al. (2001) conducted one with samples from house-
holds in Guadalajara city. Another study by Buenrostro
et al. (2001a) carried out in 1998, in Morelia city, showed
the waste generation rates of residential sources in three
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 977559644; fax: +34 977559621.
E-mail address: francesc.castells@urv.cat (F. Castells).
information about the waste composition for each level.
There was also a study in one Mexicali neighbourhood car-
ried out in 1999 and 2000 (Ojeda-Bentez et al., 2003). All
of these studies were carried out 68 years ago; since then
consumer habits have changed in Mexico, as have the char-
acteristics of the waste.
Waste characterization studies have been carried out in
other countries too. Abu Qdais et al. (1997) in Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates, obtained results showing a direct
relation between waste generation and income level. The
same authors presented a procedure to determine the min-
imum number of samples required for accurate assessment
of urban solid waste composition in a given city. Bolaane
and Ali (2004) calculated the number of sample units as
a function of total housing units for dierent income cate-
gories in Gaborone, Botswana. Nevertheless in their results
there is no signicant proportionality between waste pro-
duction and salary levels of citizens.
Provided that in Chihuahua these types of research
about urban waste characterization have not yet been
undertaken, the purpose of the current study was the accu-
rate determination of quantities and composition of solid

0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.023
2466 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471

waste generation in Chihuahua City by households with waste collection services. The average waste generation is
dierent socioeconomic levels. This is an essential prelimin- between 960 and 1000 tonnes per day, 60% of which corre-
ary step to determine the most appropriate urban solid sponds to waste generation in households (Garay, 2006).
waste (USW) management in the city. This proportion is similar to the value of 56% reported for
Chihuahua is the capital of the State of Chihuahua and is the city of Guadalajara, in Mexico (Bernache, 2003).
located in the northern region of Mexico. In 2005 Chihua-
hua City had 758,791 inhabitants (INEGI, 2005), grouped
2. Methodology
into 194,561 households and 525 neighborhoods (SCINCE,
2000). The main job activities in the city are developed in the
The characterization of solid waste in the city of Chi-
secondary and tertiary sectors. According to SCINCE
huahua consists of the following steps:
(2000) in Chihuahua 37% of the population is economically
active. Chihuahua is a city with a fast growing population.
In the city, 60% of the total USW is collected by the muni- 2.1. Organization of samples
cipal service and the remaining 40% is collected by private
The tool SCINCE por colonias 2000 (SCINCE by
Neighborhoods 2000) allows the localization of neighbor-
Table 1 hoods in the city and oers statistical and geographical
Classication in levels according to income range for the economically
active population in Chihuahua
information about them. SCINCE (2000) classies inhabit-
ants by ranges of income. Table 1 shows the classication
Income range in minimum Active Level (proposed
salarya (population) populationa classication)
levels according to the minimum salary range established
(%) by SCINCE (2000). The current study considers only three
<1 Salary 3 0
socioeconomic levels: Level I, Level II and Level III (see
12 Salaries 19 I Table 1). Level 0 is not considered in this study because this
25 Salaries 54 II population is extremely unstable; they usually change jobs
>5 Salaries 24 III often and also migrate to the US. Fig. 1 shows a map of
Note: In 2007 the minimum salary in Chihuahua was US $4.3 per day. Chihuahua City, with the location of the areas correspond-
a
Source: SCINCE, 2000. ing to the three mentioned levels.

Fig. 1. Map of Chihuahua City with detail of the sectors with dierent socioeconomic level.
 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471 2467

2
2.2. Calculation of number of samples n zSD=R

Urban solid waste (USW) is a heterogeneous material,
and its generation rates and composition vary from place
to place and from season to season (World Resources Insti-
tute, 1996; Gidarakos et al., 2006). In order to estimate accu-
rately the average quantities and composition of waste, it is
necessary to carry out a statistically designed sampling sur-
vey. From a statistical point of view, the accuracy in deter-
mining these parameters will be enhanced by increasing the
number of samples to be analyzed; however, the number of
samples should be adapted to the available resources.
The procedure designed to determine the minimum
number of samples needed to gather reasonably accurate
data was based on the central limit theorem, also applied
by Abu Qdais et al. (1997). The number of samples was
determined with a 99% condence interval and a 10% stan-
dard error. The samples were collected in the selected
neighborhoods according to socioeconomic levels I, II
and III, using the following equation:
where n is minimum number of samples, z is score deter-
mined from t Student statistical tables for standard normal
distribution, SD is standard deviation of population, equal
to the standard deviation of the preliminary sample and R
is sampling error.
The minimum number of samples needed to obtain a
10% error in the amount of waste was 162 for Level I,
162 for Level II, and 119 for Level III. Our study has been
conducted on 168 samples in Level I, 210 samples in Level
II and 182 samples in Level III (see Table 2). The number
of samples is slightly above the minimum number needed
to guarantee a 10% error.
2.3. Collection procedure
The method used for the collection of samples was
mainly the Mexican standards (NMX-AA-022-1985;
NMX-AA-061-1985; NMX-AA-091-1987) according to

Table 2
Results of the samplings survey for the three socioeconomic levels studied, Chihuahua City, April 2006
Number of residences Level I (number of samples 168 per Level II (number of samples Level III (number of samples
week) 210 per week) 182 per week)
Total waste for Resident Total waste for Resident Total waste for Resident
household (kg/week) households household (kg/week) households household (kg/week) households
1 27.3 3 27.4 5 13.9 5
2 2.2 2 18.5 4 20.0 4
3 17.8 4 10.2 2 17.4 4
4 29.5 2 21.7 4 31.5 5
5 6.9 2 20.4 4 15.4 4
6 10.5 4 35.2 4 57.3 5
7 4.4 4 22.5 5 24.2 4
8 11.1 4 13.7 4 37.0 6
9 8.0 6 8.9 2 13.4 4
10 18.7 2 19.7 6 20.3 5
11 19.2 2 5.4 1 17.4 5
12 27.2 5 14.9 3 38.6 5
13 8.6 5 6.3 2 8.8 4
14 25.5 8 16.9 3 15.0 5
15 15.8 4 35.6 2 21.4 6
16 14.0 5 21.5 4 14.5 6
17 14.3 2 13.5 6 20.0 3
18 18.7 3 17.5 4 26.8 5
19 15.0 4 19.6 5 11.0 5
20 11.8 3 16.9 4 32.2 5
21 15.7 4 33.7 4 15.8 4
22 20.2 2 21.4 5 19.6 5
23 15.7 3 13.4 4 22.8 4
24 7.2 4 17.5 3 19.1 5
25 16.4 6 46.5 3
26 13.8 3 40.2 5
27 9.3 2
28 16.3 1
29 10.7 4
30 13.0 3
Total 364.9 87 531.5 109 620.1 121
Standard deviation 0.495 0.494 0.425
Waste generation rate (kg 0.599 0.697 0.732
per capita day 1)
2468 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471

the procedure developed by Bernache-Perez et al. (2001). Table 3

Samples were collected by three dierent teams, each of Waste composition fractions
them composed of three persons. The neighborhoods cho- Waste fractions Waste components
sen were previously visited by the corresponding team to Organic Food, animal excrements, wood, garden trimmings
get acquainted with the work area. Households of each Paper Oce paper, bills, milk box and juice box (paper that
neighborhood were randomly visited and invited to partic- does not t into other category)
Newspaper Newspaper, magazines
ipate in the waste characterization program. A small ques- magazine
tionnaire about the number of people per household, Cardboard Corrugated board, boxboard, egg containers
address, collection frequency, their opinion about the cur- Plastics Film PE, small plastic
rent waste system and their willingness to recycle waste was Plastic PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, PS
responded to by the households participating in the pro- containers
Metals Ferrous, non ferrous
ject. These households were provided with black plastic Aluminum cans Aluminum cans, other aluminum
bags for waste disposal, which were marked with a four Clear glass Containers of solid foods or liquids
digit code for each household. The questionnaire included Color glass Container of beer, wine, foods
an explanation with certain rules for waste collection, for Fine residue Ground garden, ne residues that pass the sieve
instance, that personal hygiene waste (child disposable Vegetal ber Material used in apparatus for air conditioning
Synthetic ber Material used for cleaning
diapers, adult disposable diapers, feminine pads, etc.) Batteries AA or AAA batteries
should be placed in an separate plastic bag and that all Miscellaneous Nappies/sanitary products, small toys, shoes, cotton,
solid waste generated should be later deposited in the black textiles, hair, other waste (small construction waste
plastic bag. material)
Sample collection was carried out in each chosen house-
hold, each day during one week in April 2006. The rst
day, the black bags were collected and discarded to ensure bag with the waste generated in each household was trans-
that the waste to analyze had been generated in the last ported in a truck to a place where it was sorted.
24 h. Every day, when the waste was collected, a new black
plastic bag, marked with the same digit code, was given to 2.4. Classication of fractions
each household for waste collection within the next 24 h.
The second day, the family returned the black plastic bag Each bag was weighed and registered on a sampling
with the waste and received a new black plastic bag. The sheet. The waste was manually separated into 15 dierent

Fig. 2. Photographs of the six main waste fractions considered took during the waste characterization.
 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471 2469

categories, listed in Table 3, which were selected according
to the possibility of recovering the corresponding materials.
Then each one of the fractions was weighed and the results
were recorded on a sampling sheet. Waste collection con-
tinued for six more days following the same procedure.
This work was supported by personnel from the Departa-
mento de Aseo Urbano Municipal (Department of Muni-
cipal Urban Cleanliness) and students from the
Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua (Autonomous Uni-
versity of Chihuahua). Photographs of the six main waste
fractions realized during the waste fraction classication
are shown in Fig. 2.
3. Results
3.1. Waste generation rate
A total of 560 collected samples came from 80 house-
holds (24 from Level I, 30 from Level II and 26 from Level
III), selected randomly during 1 week in April 2006. The
quantity of USW collected during the study period was
365, 532 and 620 kg, respectively, for each socioeconomic
level studied. The total quantity of solid waste analyzed
was 1517 kg, which was generated during the 1-week
period by 105 residents of the neighborhoods studied.
Table 2 shows the results for the three socioeconomic lev-
els above-mentioned, the total solid waste collected per
household and the number of residents per household.
The average solid waste generation rate per neighbor-
hood was 0.599, 0.697 and 0.732 kg per capita per day,
respectively, for levels I, II and III. The average solid waste
generation rate for Chihuahua in April 2006 was 0.676 kg
per capita per day with an average 3.9 residents per
household.
The average generation rate was highest in the highest
socioeconomic level or Level III: 0.732 kg per capita per
day. The lowest rate 0.599 kg per capita per day corre-
sponds to the lowest socioeconomic level or Level I. The
waste generation rate shows a positive correlation with
the socioeconomic class, which is similar to what was
observed in a study undertaken in Morelia in 1998 (Bue-
nrostro et al., 2001a). Although per capita generation rates
in Chihuahua in April 2006 show a positive trend from the
lowest to the highest socioeconomic strata, the dierence is
not statistically signicant.
3.2. Urban waste composition in Chihuahua
Table 4 shows the quantity per capita per day of USW
generation for each fraction. The quantity of the organic
fraction was higher for Level III than for Level II and
Level I. The highest socioeconomic class generates larger
amounts of organic fraction.
Level III generated more newspapermagazines and
cardboard than the other levels. A possible explanation
for this is that the capacity to aord these products is
higher in households from Level III with the highest socio-
economic level.
Level II has the highest quantity of aluminum cans
among all levels, while in level III the domestic service col-
lected the aluminum cans for sale in the recycling industry.
Meanwhile households in Level II and Level I do not have
domestic service so they may discard them in the waste.
Also it should be taken into account that in Level I the
households buy small quantities of products in aluminum
cans because of their high price.
The fraction of colored glass, found in more expensive
products, was higher in Level III (0.010 kg/(capita.day)
than in the other levels. Level III also shows the highest
quantity of vegetal ber used in Chihuahua in cooling sys-
tems, in spring and summer seasons. Households in Level
III (the highest socioeconomic level) have more cooling sys-
tems and consequently they produce more waste of vegetal
ber than the rest of the population.

Table 4
Amount per capita and weight percentage of USW fractions by socioeconomic level, Chihuahua City, April 2006
Fractions Level I Level II Level III
kg/(capita.day) % kg/(capita.day) % kg/(capita.day) %
Organic 0.283 47.2 0.334 48.0 0.356 48.6
Paper 0.054 9.0 0.062 8.8 0.060 8.1
Newspapermagazines 0.013 2.2 0.039 5.6 0.047 6.5
Cardboard 0.015 2.5 0.013 1.9 0.023 3.1
Plastics 0.051 8.6 0.054 7.8 0.054 7.4
Plastic containers 0.023 3.9 0.029 4.2 0.030 4.0
Metals 0.016 0.3 0.011 0.8 0.012 0.3
Aluminum cans 0.002 2.7 0.006 1.6 0.002 1.6
Clear glass 0.038 6.3 0.024 3.4 0.031 4.2
Color glass 0.003 0.5 0.007 1.1 0.010 1.4
Fine residue 0.006 1.0 0.013 1.9 0.012 1.6
Vegetal ber 0 0 0.01 1.5 0.02 2.8
Synthetic ber 0 0 0 0 0 0
Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0.095 15.8 0.093 13.3 0.075 10.3
Total 0.599 100 0.697 100 0.732 100
2470 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471

Table 5
Fractions generated in Chihuahua and other Mexican cities
Fractions Chihuahua Guadalajara*a Mexicali*b Morelia*c
kg % kg % kg % kg %
Organic 246,101 48.0 939,089 54.0 5787 55.6 175,450 57.1
Paper 82,455 16.1 123,473 7.1 916 8.8 33,881 11.0
Plastic 60,956 11.9 156,515 9.0 629 6.1 24,125 7.9
Metals 12,394 2.4 26,086 1.5 198 1.9 5621 1.8
Glass 28,581 5.6 69,562 4.1 364 3.5 14,422 4.7
Others 81,949 16.0 424,329 24.4 2506 24.1 53,601 17.5
Generation rate kg/(capita.day) 0.676 0.580 0.592 0.629
*
The classication of waste composition for these studies was reduced to six fractions for this comparative analysis.
a
Source: Bernache-Perez et al., 2001.
b
Source: Ojeda-Bentez et al., 2003.
c
Source: Buenrostro et al., 2001a.

The 15 fractions presented in Table 4 were aggregated in
Table 5 into six main groups in order to compare the
results of this study with other existing studies:
1. Organic.
2. Paper: composed of paper, newspapermagazines and
cardboard.
3. Plastic: composed of plastic and plastic containers.
4. Metals: composed of aluminum cans and metals.
5. Glass: composed of clear glass and color glass.
6. Others: composed of ne residue, vegetal ber, synthetic
ber, batteries and miscellaneous.
Fig. 3 shows the dierences between the six fractions for
the three socioeconomic levels. The highest socioeconomic
level (Level III) has a higher percentage of organic waste
and paper than Level I or II. For plastic, metal, glass
and other fractions, the dierences between the three levels
are not signicant enough to allow conclusions about the
inuence of the socioeconomic level on these fractions.
3.3. Comparison of solid waste composition
A comparison of solid waste composition in Chihuahua
with that of other Mexican cities is presented in Table 5. It
shows that Chihuahua city has an average organic fraction
lower than that of other Mexican cities. The remaining
fractions (paper, plastic, metals, glass, and others) are pres-
ent in a higher percentage. A possible explanation for this
behavior is that the proportion of organic fraction in waste
decreases with the increase of the gross domestic product
(GDP). There is a signicant dierence of GDP between
Chihuahua and the other cities. Data for 2006 shows that
the increase in the GDP was 6.3% in Guadalajara, 4.3%
in Chihuahua, 3.6% in Mexicali, and 2.2% in Morelia
(INEGI, 2005).
Another possible explanation for the dierences in the
proportion of the six fractions between Chihuahua and
other Mexican cities could be because the present study
was carried out in April 2006, while in Guadalajara it
was conducted in JuneAugust 1997; in Mexicali, in
MayJune 1999 and in MarchApril 2000; and in Morelia,
in FebruaryMarch 1998. Furthermore, compared to the
560 samples from 80 households during one week analyzed
in this study, Bernache-Perez et al. (2001) analyzed samples
from 300 households in Guadalajara, Ojeda-Bentez et al.
(2003) analyzed 1380 samples in one neighborhood during
eight weeks in Mexicali, and Buenrostro et al. (2001a)
assessed 262 samples from three dierent socioeconomic
levels in Morelia.
4. Conclusions

The characterization of USW was performed in Chihua-

0.40 hua households during one week in April 2006 in order to
Nivel I
0.35 quantify the waste generation and the waste composition
Nivel II
0.30 and to identify possible socioeconomic trends in the waste
Nivel III
kg/(capita.day)

0.25
generation. Three dierent areas from the city with clearly
dierent socioeconomic levels were studied: Level I with an
0.20
average income of 12 income minimum salaries, Level II
0.15
with 25 minimum salaries and Level III (highest economic
0.10 level) with more than ve minimum salaries. A total of 560
0.05 samples were taken from 80 households during one week,
0.00 weighting a total of 1517 kg. The average USW generation
Organic Paper Plastic Metals Glass Others
for Chihuahua in April 2006 was 0.676 kg/(capita.day).
Waste fractions
The highest waste generation corresponds to households
Fig. 3. Quantity per capita of six fractions for three socioeconomic levels. in Level III, with the highest economic income, while the
 G. Gomez et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 24652471
lowest waste generation corresponds to households in
Level I, with the lowest economic income. The waste gen-
eration calculated show a slight positive trend from the
lowest to the highest economic stratum, but it should be
taken into account that the dierences founded are not sta-
tistically signicant. More studies are needed in order to
document this trend.
USW was sorted in 15 fractions and its respective com-
position was determined. The fractions studied were
organic, newspapermagazines, cardboard, other paper,
plastic container, other plastic, aluminum cans, other met-
als, clear glass, colored glass, ne residue, vegetal ber, syn-
thetic ber, batteries and miscellaneous. The USW
composition diered slightly among the socioeconomic lev-
els studied.
For Chihuahua city, 48% of total urban waste corre-
sponds to the organic fraction, and it represents the main
urban solid waste for all three of the socioeconomic levels
studied.
Because all that, the current work can be considered as a
rst needed step in a sustainable waste management plan-
ning, since it provides accurate information of the waste
urban generation and composition in Chihuahua (Mexico).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Promep Mexico for nancially
supporting this research. The authors also thank Departa-
mento de Aseo Urbano de Chihuahua, Rebeca Mendoza,
Joel Acosta and Ricardo Marinelarena for their help in this
study.
References
Abu Qdais, H., Hamonda, M.F., Newham, J., 1997. Analysis of
residential solid waste at generation sites. Waste Management &
Research 15, 395406.
Bernache, G., 2003. The environmental impact of municipal waste
management: the case of Guadalajara metro area. Resources, Con-
servation and Recycling 39, 23237.
Bernache-Perez, G., Sanchez-Colon, S., Garmendia, A.M., Sanchez-
Salazar, M.E., 2001. Solid waste characterization study in the
2471
Guadalajara metropolitan zone, Mexico. Waste Management &
Research 19, 413424.
Bolaane, B., Ali, M., 2004. Sampling household waste at source: lessons
learnt in Gaborone. Waste Management & Research 22, 142148.
Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G., 2003. Solid waste management in municipal-
ities in Mexico: goals and perspectives. Resources Conservation and
Recycling 39, 251263.
Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G., Bernache, G., 2001a. Urban solid waste
generation and disposal in Mexico: a case study. Waste Management
& Research 19, 169176.
Garay, V., 2006. Unpublished data. Departamento de Aseo Urbano
Municipal de Chihuahua (Department Municipal Urban Cleanliness
Chihuahua), Mexico. victor.garay@mpiochih.gob.mx.
Gidarakos, E., Havas, G., Ntzamilis, P., 2006. Municipal solid waste
composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste
management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management 26,
668679.
INEGI. Insituto Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informatica, 2005. II
Conteo de Poblacion y Vivienda, 2005. (II Counting Population and
Housing 2005). Mexico. <http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/
espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=mpob93&c=3839&e=08>.
McDougal, F., White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2002. Integrated Solid
Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. Blackwell
Science, Oxford, UK.
NMX-AA-022-1985. Mexicana Ocial Standard NMX-AA-022-1985
Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial. Proteccion al Ambi-
ente-Contaminacion del Suelo-Residuos Solidos Municipales-Selec-
cion y Cuanticacion de Subproductos, Mexico.
NMX-AA-061-1985. Mexican Ocial Standard NMX-AA-061-1985.
Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial. Proteccion al Ambi-
ente-Contaminacion del Suelo-Residuos Solidos Municipales-Deter-
minacion de la Generacion, Mexico.
NMX-AA-091-1987. Mexican Ocial Standard NMX-AA-091-1985.
Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial. Calidad del suelo-
terminologa. Mexico.
Ojeda-Bentez, S., Armijo de Vega, C., Ramrez-Barreto, M.E., 2003.
Characterization and quantication of household solid wastes in a
Mexican city. Resources Conservation and Recycling 39, 211222.
SCINCE, 2000. Sistema para la Consulta de Informacion Censal.
SCINCE por colonias (SCINCE by neighborhoods 2000). Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informatica, Mexico.
World Resources Institute, 1996. United Nations Environmental Pro-
gram, United Nations Development Program. The World Bank,
World Resources 19961997. The Urban Environment. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. <http://pdf.wri.org/worldresources1996-
97_bw.pdf>.
Zeng, Y., Trauth, K.M., Peyton, R.L., Banerji, S., 2005. Characterization
of solid waste disposed at Columbia Sanitary Landll in Missouri.
Waste Management & Research 23, 6271.